I have the following question about a Rashi on this Gemara:
Rav Huna said in the name of Rav that a woman can say to her husband I don't want your food and I do not have to give you the fruits of my labours.
The Gemara suggests that the Mishna on 58b proves this theory because it deals with the case where the husband can support his wife. The reason he cannot be Makdish her production is because she can say I don't want your food and I won't give you my production. The Gemara then concludes that the Mishna is dealing with a case where the husband cannot support his wife and that is why his statement of Hekdesh won't work.
So the case of the Mishna is that he is not giving her food.
Rashi in DH LeOlam (on 58b) says the beginning of the Mishna (the portion quoted above) is talking about the case where he can give her food and she refuses it. Doesn't this contradict the conclusion of the Gemara that said the Mishna was not a proof for Rav Huna for we now see that it is a proof to Rav Huna?
You write 'The Gemara then concludes that the Mishna is dealing with a case where the husband cannot support his wife and that is why his statement of Hekdesh won't work'. This is not a conclusion; it is a Dichuy (a rejection), rejecting the proof from our Mishnah for Rav Huna Amar Rav.
As for Rav Huna Amar Rav, he will be only too happy to establish the Mishnah in a case where the husband is feeding his wife, as the Gemara suggested.
Rashi is therefore perfectly justified in saying that Rav establishes the Mishnah where the husband is feeding his wife.
be'Virchas Kol Tuv.